Delaware Lost Its “Ghost Gun” Ban in Federal Court. Now It Wants a Do-Over.

November 13, 2026 — Informational legal-news update. Facts in this article are current as of November 13, 2026.

On November 12, 2026, plaintiffs John Rigby, Alan Knight, and the Firearms Policy Coalition filed a brief asking a federal judge to leave in place a Second Amendment ruling Delaware has already lost. In September, U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika permanently enjoined the State’s bans on possessing and manufacturing so-called “ghost guns.” That injunction is still in force. The judge has not ruled on Delaware’s request to take the judgment back, the State may still file a reply, and Delaware’s rules on selling or transferring untraceable firearms—and on distributing 3-D-printing files—remain enforceable.

What the court enjoined, and what it left standing

On September 10, 2026, Judge Noreika entered judgment in Rigby v. Jennings, No. 1:21-cv-01523 (D. Del.). The judgment permanently enjoins enforcement of four provisions of Title 11 of the Delaware Code:

the ban on possessing an unfinished firearm frame or receiver that lacks a manufacturer’s name and serial number, 11 Del. C. § 1459A(b);
the ban on possessing an “untraceable firearm,” § 1463(a);
the portion of § 1463(b) that prohibits knowingly manufacturing or assembling an untraceable firearm, or causing one to be manufactured or assembled; and
the ban on using a 3-dimensional printer or similar device to manufacture or produce a firearm, firearm receiver, or major firearm component when not licensed as a manufacturer, § 1463(c)(1).

The same judgment held constitutional and enforceable the restrictions on transporting, shipping, transferring, or selling an unfinished firearm frame or receiver, § 1459A(a); the portions of § 1463(b) that prohibit selling or transferring an untraceable firearm; and the ban on distributing computer-aided design files or similar digital instructions used to program a 3-D printer to produce a firearm or major component, § 1463(c)(2).

The results were mixed, as the court’s memorandum opinion itself described them. The possession and home-manufacturing bans fell. The sales, transfer, and 3-D-file distribution rules did not.

Delaware’s motion for a do-over

On October 8, 2026, Attorney General Kathy Jennings filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) asking the court to alter or amend the judgment, dissolve the injunction, and uphold the enjoined provisions in full.

The State’s opening brief leans on two developments from the week before the September 10 ruling. First, on September 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided United States v. Berger, a precedential opinion that upheld a federal machine-gun conviction and the National Firearms Act’s registration and serialization requirements for suppressors. Delaware argues that Berger treats “minimal, objective” serialization and registration rules as incidental burdens that do not infringe the Second Amendment at the first step of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.

Second, on September 3, Delaware Gov. Matt Meyer signed House Bill 418. The law gives a person who lawfully possessed an unserialized firearm or unfinished frame or receiver before that date six months to have it serialized by a federally licensed dealer or manufacturer, or to render it permanently inoperable. New residents get six months from the day they establish residency. Delaware tells the court that this “directly addresses the reasoning underlying the Court’s injunction.”

What the plaintiffs told the court

The plaintiffs’ November 12 opposition argues that a Rule 59(e) motion has an “extremely limited” purpose and is not a vehicle for relitigating a case the State already lost. They also note that both of the developments Delaware cites occurred before the September 10 judgment.

Their core point is that Delaware is defending a statute that does not exist—one that merely imposes a “minimal, objective serialization requirement.” According to the brief, Delaware still flatly prohibits manufacturing or assembling an untraceable firearm and still prohibits unlicensed 3-D printing of firearms, receivers, or major components, with “no exceptions” and “no path to compliance” for someone who wants to make a new firearm and then serialize it. H.B. 418’s safe harbor, they argue, reaches only items already possessed as of September 3, 2026. It does not open a way to build a new one, even if a serial number would be added afterward.

Firearms Policy Coalition, a plaintiff in the case, put the same point in a November 12 release: the laws “prohibit peaceable people from making and assembling their own firearms—even if the resulting firearms would be serialized.” FPC also says the district court relied on the Third Circuit’s en banc decision in Cheeseman v. Davenport, a precedent on commonly possessed arms. Judge Noreika’s opinion cites that en banc ruling repeatedly, under the caption Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney General of New Jersey.

The judge has not ruled. Under the District of Delaware’s local rules, the State may still file a reply brief.

The appeal is parked, not decided

On October 12, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a protective notice of appeal from the September 10 order and judgment, including the parts that went against them. The appeal was docketed in the Third Circuit as No. 26-3575 and, on October 13, was stayed under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4) pending the district court’s decision on the Rule 59(e) motion. The Third Circuit has not decided the merits. The September 10 injunction stays in force unless and until Judge Noreika grants Delaware’s motion.

What it means for Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania sits in the Third Circuit, so how this case is resolved on appeal could shape what Harrisburg can do. Democrats won a governing trifecta in the 2026 midterms and take office in January 2027. Bans on home-built and unserialized firearms are reportedly on the agenda for that legislature. No such bill has been filed for the 2027 session. The district court has not ruled on Delaware’s motion, the appeal is stayed rather than decided, and this article does not predict the outcome of either proceeding, or of any future Pennsylvania proposal.

Bottom line: On September 10, 2026, Judge Noreika permanently enjoined Delaware’s bans on possessing and manufacturing unserialized and untraceable firearms, including unlicensed 3-D printing of firearms and major components. The State’s rules on sales, transfers, and 3-D-file distribution remain in force. Delaware has asked the same judge to alter that judgment. The plaintiffs filed their opposition on November 12. As of November 13, 2026, the judge has not ruled, the State may still file a reply, and a Third Circuit appeal is stayed—not decided—while that motion is pending.

Sources

This article is general information, not legal advice. Sources reviewed November 13, 2026 (ET).

Tags: Delaware, Federal Law, Ghost Guns, Pennsylvania, Second Amendment

x.comfacebook.comE-mail